Quite the opposite.

It is “what exactly those planes can do”, by the nature of its “generation” characteristics which is what defines its “generation”.

the world isnt that black and white….capabilities isnt that easy categoriesed into “generations”. F-35 will soon be the latest generation with lots of goodies, but it still not a interceptor.. still LM fouls politicians into beliveing that with the generation bullS***.

So why is the the israelie G550 so popular these days?

Regarding which AWACS is more capable, I red somewhere an article about the new E2D. the author was extatic about the performances.

E2D?

Which, type is the most capable………..:confused:

The israelis have won allot contracts lately, they can incorperate it into “any” airframe. have a bigger antenna area. So dont be so USA…

And about “capable”, 400km on small targets isnt that blockbusting…
Erieeye has done it for many years..

feel free to believe whatever you want. The prices that I’ve seen quoted for SH for the USN ($54 million per unit) seemed quite good. Even considering any export levy and profit margin, the price is far below what the Typhoon or hte Rafale will be at..the Gripen NG package to Netherlands gave us some idea of what price to expect from them. its around $70 million per Gripen NG, including support, but no weapons. Weapons are SERIOUS advantage for the SH. nothing new has to be integrated for the SH and it carries state of the art weapons for BVR, WVR, PGMs, HARMS, et. all. all of these are already operational as well, so its a distinct advantage for the SH and the F-16IN. the Rafale and the Gripen NG lack a SEAD weapon and the MICA for BVR and WVR is damn expensive. Typhoon’s A2G weaponry is woefully inadequate as of now, and Austere A2G capabilities will not impress the IAF enough.

and the MMRCA isn’t asking for Growlers specifically doesn’t mean that there is no possibility of converting some options to Growlers IF the SH is chosen. the RAAF has just done that, with 12 of its 24 SH Block II’s capable of being converted to Growler config whenever required- the change being made on the SH assembly line itself.

Saab did inklude training, spares, simulators and support for the hole lifetime in that price..

I think he concept of MTOW is not clear to you still. 24,500 kg is the max. that MiG-29 K can take-off with. Once in the air, it can refuel to it’s full internal fuel and so it’s all-up weight will increase to >25 tons or so.

If it’s MTOW is 24,500 kgs and max. payload is 5.5 tons then assuming internal fuel to be 4.5 tons (1 ton to be refuelled mid-air) then it’s empty weight comes to 13.5 – 14 tons. This makes it in the F-15C class.

As regards the abbreviation MRCA, it stood for Medium Range Combat Aircraft. Now, IAF circles refer to it as MMRCA, which stands for Medium Muti-Role Combat Aircraft. The “Medium” here still stands for Medium range and not empty weight, considering that the IAF has invited tenders from the 7 ton single-engine Gripen, to the 13.5 ton two-engine MiG-35. However, it is said that the absolute empty weight too will play an important role in this because a serving Air Force chief (now retired) when interviewed few years back, said that the MRCA will “bridge the gap” between the “light” Tejas and “heavy” Su-30 MKI.

I’m also sure that the af.mil site has revised the specs of the F-15C and F-15 SE. I distinctly remember F-15 SE’s empty weight to be 14-15 tons empty. A member who said that these are old specs, may thus be right.

dont measure empty weight to favor tejas to gripen measure real usefull data, like MTOW and range, radarrange/angles instead etc.

F-16, gripen and draken is good lookers..
i think tornado looks bad allright…still really ugly..together with mig-25